Litespeed C1R, Part II

As I mentioned near the opening of this review, the C1R was part of that rare group of bikes in which I noticed the extra complement of speed provided by the aerodynamics in the first mile of riding it. I tell you, if you ride enough different bikes, the one with significantly improved aerodynamics will call attention to itself. Think Ford GT40 pulling away from a stoplight.

There was a short window earlier this year—prior to the birth of the Deuce—when my form was fair adjacent. I wasn’t actually fast, but I was fit enough to get to the front of the rides I did, even if I did blow up almost as soon as I got there. At least I could get there. With the aid of the C1R and a set of Zipp 404s, I had the ability to get to the front, do a brief pull and then get out of the way before blowing up. As achievements go, it was as dubious as a Wall Street broker claiming to save souls, but the difference for my own riding was too great to be ignored. The combination of frame and wheels was worth about as six weeks of training. It was as remarkable a change as the difference I’d experience from when I’d decide it was time to knuckle down on my training and that first day when I’d think, “Hey, we’re making progress here!”

That change takes about six weeks for most folks, me included.

My review bike was a large; it had a 57cm top tube, parallel 73-degree seat and head tube angles, 4.3cm of fork rake and 6.8cm of BB drop for neutral handling. The front center on this bike was a longish 59.8cm while the chainstays are a rather short 39.5cm. If that long front center and short chainstay design sounds familiar to any geo geeks out there, they ought to. This bike is the heir apparent to the old Litespeed Ultimate, arguably the most beloved bike Litespeed ever built. The C1R is offered only as a frameset. It goes for a very reasonable $2999. The C1, Ci2 and C3 are all offered as complete bikes and even the best spec’d C1 is only $5299.

Because so many riders seem so resistant to the idea that aerodynamics can make a significant difference in performance, I keep working to think of new ways to convey the extra speed. My initial rides on an aero road bike, on the Cervelo SLC-SL, was one of those Candid Camera moments, an occasion was so significantly out of whack with my normal experience that I doubted perception and nearly wondered if someone was messing with me. Fast forward a year and the same thing happened on the Felt AR. Then with the Cervelo S5.

Think about the difference you feel between sitting up with your hands on the top of the bar and then what you gain when you put your hands in the drops. Yeah, well an aero road bike is worth even more. It is easily worth a cog, sometimes more.

Now, we all know the knocks against aero road bikes. Riding one is like playing jockey to a jackhammer; they twist like Chubby Checker, and they offer all the road feedback of a couch cushion. Helluva pitch. Like trying to sell someone a box of ticks.

Imagine my surprise when I got on the C1R and it didn’t ride like I was doing laps over railroad tracks. I’m about to review a traditional road bike that has a harsher ride than the C1R. It’s no Specialized Roubaix, but I’d put it in a range of comfort on a par with almost anything rolling on 25s, or a fuzzy robe. The road sensitivity was a shocker, too. Wall thickness was kept to a minimum in the midsections to help transmit more high frequency vibration while the lack of paint or 3k weave cut down on the deadening effect of coating a frame in non-structural material. This thing is yet another argument for bike companies going to the extra expense to use materials like high modulus carbon fiber with resin infused with carbon nanotubes.

The engineer responsible for this bike, Brad Devaney, told me that the integrated seat post was a real point of conversation on the C-series bikes. He said he was determined not to let an ISP dictate the ride quality of the bike. Even so, he says the C1R will move to an aero seat post for 2014.

Brad also told me that wind tunnel testing confirmed that this bike gives riders a greater aerodynamic edge than a set of Zipp Firecrest 404s. That’s a bunch of free speed. Combined with a set of 404s and your friends will be inclined to kid that you need to pee in a cup. Trust me. On a long run out the coast to the far reaches of Malibu I found myself doing 24 into the wind on a false flat and I was only riding at a moderate tempo. Given my fitness at the time I estimate that’s 3 mph faster than what I would have done on a regular road bike with box-rim wheels. I was enjoying myself. Friends were coming up to me to comment on how well I was riding. Look, when you’re friends bother to comment on how well you’re going, when it’s so noticeable that they feel a need to comment, well that is all the independent confirmation I need.

As disclosures go, I should make clear that Brad and I go way back. Summer of 1989. We worked on two sides of a Park repair stand at the Peddler Bike Shop in Memphis, Tennessee. Brad was majoring in engineering at the university across the street and any time we ran into a thorny mechanical problem, something we couldn’t figure out how to resolve, we turned it over to him. He had a rare combination for insight into materials science, logical thinking and creative problem solving, even among a shop full of competent bike mechanics. I have a soft spot for his work because I really believe in him. He’s a fierce competitor with a gentle nature and the natural smile of someone who can give compassion as readily as he receives it. That compromises my impartiality, but if I thought this was a crap bike, I’d never have asked to review it. There are ways to dodge that kind of awkward.

Brad told me that it was important to him to give the C-series bikes lines that flowed, rather than taking a single aero shape and “sweep it from head tube to bottom bracket.” For me, that’s part of the beauty of this bike. One of the points he’s most proud of on this bike though was the concave surface on the down tube where the bottle bosses are. With that shape the bike is actually more slippery with the bottle and cage than it is without it. Yes, according to wind tunnel testing, this bike is slower without the bottle than it is with it.

As I noted previously, the frame’s weight was just a nick over 1kg. That relatively low weight for an aero frame was a big contributor to the ride quality both in overall comfort and road feel. But because it lacked another 200 or 300g in carbon fiber found in some of its competitors, this bike did flex some under out-of-the-saddle efforts. I’d compare it favorably to that first generation of oversized steel. You could move it around some in a sprint, but not enough to disturb the handling. However, descending was the one occasion when the bike’s tube shapes and low weight came up as something other than diamonds. On tight, technical descents, the bike lacked the crisp carving of the current generation of American carbon fiber road frames. It wasn’t sloppy the way the French carbon fiber stuff used to be, but it just wasn’t quite as precise as what I’m used to and that was enough for me to sit up a bit and scrub some speed with my torso.

It was on big, exposed descents, ones where cross winds can push you a bit that exposed the C1R’s greatest weakness. The constellation of C1R, Zipp 404s and cross wind created an oscillation that caused me some puckering. It wasn’t a typical high-speed wobble, but arguing fine points on the particular flavor of wobble isn’t really necessary. I suspect this bike would be a problem in the Front Range of Colorado and a few other mountainous places where you can encounter stiff winds.

That’s, what, maybe five percent of the United States? Most places I rode, most places I might ever ride, this bike handled perfectly fine. Even in crosswinds on the flat it wasn’t a problem. It was only after my speed was up over 40 mph and there was a crosswind that there was a problem. When I switched out the from 404 for a 202 the issue was cut considerably.

The lesson for me was that we’re at a point where all aero road bikes give up something. All of them. The S5 beats you to death. The Venge gives up a bit of speed to offer better handling and not quite as much pistol-whipping of your undercarriage. The C1R is the only aero road bike that gave up some torsional stiffness to gain ride quality and comfort. I don’t have any objective data to confirm that it’s as fast as the S5, but it is at least in the same class. As a result, for those considering an aero road bike, the C1R is a real alternative. A different approach to a common problem. This is easily my favorite aero bike I’ve ridden so far.

When I think about the riding I used to do in Tennessee, lots of flat roads that run straight for miles at a time, I appreciate just what a daily asset this bike could be. Man, if I wanted to race again, I’d train on a steel bike with box rims and then race this on the weekends. With this bike I could break stuff—legs, wills, records.

17 comments

Actually, a Ford GT-40, lovely as it is, probably isn’t that great pulling away from a stop light. They were designed to do very high speed for very long distances, not fast acceleration from a stop. Rather different beasts.

You know, that’s a fair observation. I think I was so wowed by the sound of one accelerating (I’ve seen a few around LA), I didn’t bother to pay attention to whether it was actually accelerating like a goosed V8.

The C1R “gives riders a greater aerodynamic edge than a set of Zipp Firecrest 404s.” That’s really compelling stuff, and for me at least, really helps to quantify the advantage of an aero road frame.

Your comment about descending on this bike with 404s echos my experience decending on a non-aero R5 with 303s. Swirling cross-winds combined with a fast descent is not a fun experience. Switching to a 202 front wheel reduces the twitchiness significantly; a traditional box front rim alleviates it completely. This leads me to wonder if a re-think of bike geometry, particularly front-end geometry, is in order for aero-oriented bikes?

In any case, great review. I really appreciate your dedication to quantifying the real world benefits of aero road frames. It seems all to easy to dismiss the benefits by comparing the frame to the very non-aero rider. What you’ve demonstrated is that the benefits are real and tangible, and at least for me, worth considering when buying a new frame.

For everyone who is new to commenting here, this is a reminder that the comments section here at RKP is a space for intelligent conversation. If you can’t manage to conduct yourself in a civilized manner—which means no dismissive, snarky comments—we will just delete them and you won’t have a chance to be heard. I’m not big on censorship, but if you don’t have anything intelligent to say, I don’t really think it counts as censorship. For anyone wondering why your comment didn’t show up, this is your answer. It doesn’t happen much, I’m pleased to say, but I’m not going to put up with trolling. /rant

Les B: What you’re describing sounds like an alignment issue. I certainly saw plenty of bikes that pulled left or right back in my shop days. Any time we were able to get the frame aligned, that almost always corrected the problem.

In a group ride or race a little bit of aero can perhaps translate to more than you would think. Being able to close a gap (out of a corner, slightly dropped over the top, inattention etc…) more quickly because you’re going a bit faster can be important. Imagine the group is doing 40km/hr and you’re 50m behind and chasing. If you can be at 42km/hr, you’ll close the gap twice as quickly as you will doing 41km/hr. Half the time in the wind. If you can only do 40km/hr, you’re in for a long day. In a crit, I’ll bet it adds up.

Objective real world tests I have read show about a .2-.3 mph gain for well designed aero bike
frames if you are riding at a good clip, all alone, and keep a good position on the drops. (If you are drafting, the effect is a lot less.) That might make a difference if you are a long distance breakaway specialist, are capable of Cavadish like sprint speeds or are fighting for seconds on longer Strava courses. That’s why Garmin’s breakaway specialist David Miller usually rides a Cervelo S5. OTH, the team’s other top riders choose R5s, despite the S5s aero advantage. Tales of guys suddenly dropping and stomping all over their buddies over short distances with their new aero frames are highly exaggerated placebo effects. The difference is a lot more subtle and really only comes into play over long distances. I’ll take comfort, handling, low weight and stiffness first.

I am not doubting your feeling of increased speed, but 3 mph is absolutely not possible due to the bike, I would even doubt 0.3 mph.

Going from 21 to 24 mph will increase the drag by ~30% or little less depending on the wind. However, only about 20% of your total drag is the bike itself, so even if you would have magical 0 drag bicycle, you would not gain 3mph. More likely the drag reduction of your bicycle is in 10% range, meaning ~2% of total drag, resulting in only marginal gains.

Large gains can be only obtained by changing the rider position and even there going from riding on the hoods of a standard cycle to full optimized time trial time trial position and kit would not result in 3 mph gains.

And this is coming from a triathlete owning all kinds of nice and wonderful aerokit, making one feel incredibly fast.

A few years ago I read an interesting interview with Cervelo cofounder and aero bike guru Phil White in Bicycling mag. He said that the advantage for an average rider moving right along, staying on the drops over varying terrain on their S3 Aero bike over the same rider on their less aero R3 worked out to about a 10 meter gain per kilometer. That’s a 1% advantage. Obviously, the aero advantage increases or decreases with speed, rider size, etc and we’re not talking about a controlled wind tunnel test, but Phil was laying it out in real world terms that are pretty easy to grasp. Over 50k, you’d gain about .5k over your non aero self. No doubt aero frames have gotten somewhat better since that interview, but an S3 is still considered a pretty slick bike and it helps put “aero” in perspective.

“When I think about the riding I used to do in Tennessee, lots of flat roads that run straight for miles at a time . . .”

Just moved to TN from CA last summer . . . have to say, there are not a lot of flat roads that run straight for miles at time in the greater Nashville area.

Also, I’ve been riding a C1 for a year and a half and have been similarly impressed by it. I recently had to my aluminum Allez for about two months while I (very slowly) did some maintenance on the C1. When I finally got back on the C1, I experienced that “wow” factor all over again.

Do you know if this bike was designed in the tunnel with Zipp wheels?
If so, would that entail that it’s optimized for Zipp?
I was thinking of going 808 firecrest on this bike. However, perhaps this bike was designed with 404’s in mind and, in light of the bottle cage concept, the 808’s wouldn’t be worth the extra weight.

I’m like 140 lbs topps and don’t think lack of stiffness will be a problem. I don’t really care about “lightweight” unless we’re talking wheels.

Erick: I don’t know what wheels it was tested with in the wind tunnel. I do know that their wind tunnel data showed that that frame is equal in aero benefit, roughly, to a set of Firecrest 404s. If you only weigh 140 lbs. you might consider going 404 front and 808 rear in case you have to deal with some wind.

I’ve been looking around for a few weeks and have had this bike as one of my choices. I live in south florida and the only bike I’ve ever riding is a klein quantum pro. My rides are usually 40-60 miles steady with a weekly group ride that speeds vary every few miles. Do you think the C series or L series is a better choice?